As Trump orders troops to Los Angeles, PRM documents show history of military-police interaction
By Matt Ehling and Mike Kaszuba
Three days ago, 700 active duty U.S. Marines arrived in Los Angeles, after being deployed by President Trump in response to protests against his administration’s immigration policies. The Marines followed an earlier deployment of 2,000 federalized California National Guard troops, who had been tasked by the president to protect federal buildings in the city.
The moves – creating a headline-grabbing showdown between Trump and his immigration policy critics -- brought immediate condemnation from California Governor Gavin Newsom, who criticized Trump’s activation of federal troops on domestic soil as a dangerous over-reach.
The website of the California Governor’s Office quotes Newsom as saying that “[t]he federal government is now turning the military against American citizens … we ask the court to immediately block these unlawful actions.”
For more than a decade Public Record Media, a non-profit based in Saint Paul, has used public data requests to obtain government documents that have highlighted trends toward using the military to aid domestic law enforcement.
The developments this week in California have become the latest, and perhaps most dramatic, chapter in that trend.
As of June 12th, the State of California had sued to halt the president’s troop deployment, and the Justice Department had filed a responsive brief.
At issue is the question of when a sitting president can legally deploy federal military troops for missions inside the United States. Documents obtained over the years by PRM have shed light on how this issue has emerged in the past.
Legal separation of military and police roles
Since the end of the Civil War, federal law has largely prohibited the use of active duty troops for domestic law enforcement missions. The 1878 law states that “whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or an Act of Congress” willfully uses federal armed forces “as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws” shall be fined or imprisoned.
While this legal barrier has existed for well over a century, Congress has enacted a number of exceptions to it. At least one exception — the Insurrection Act of 1807 — pre-dated the passage of Posse Comitatus, and allows the president to deploy federal troops in instances where a state governor has requested them; or when “unlawful obstructions” or a “rebellion against the authority of the United States” makes it “impractical” to enforce the laws of the United States.
As of June 12th, the president had not yet used the Insurrection Act as justification for his troop deployment, but had instead relied on another federal law — U.S.C 12406 — as the basis for his actions. That law allows the president to federalize state National Guard troops in instances where “there is a danger of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States” or when the president “is unable with regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.”
Whether those circumstances exist in Los Angeles is at the heart of the State of California’s lawsuit against Trump’s military deployment.
U.S.C. 12406 was first enacted in 1903. And in the 1980s and 1990s, Congress added additional statutory exceptions, allowing the U.S. military to coordinate with domestic law enforcement entities in the service of drug interdiction and related “law enforcement support” missions that do not directly involve military personnel in law enforcement tasks.
PRM’s document collection — obtained through years of state and federal record requests — includes a number of government documents that speak to these trends.
Military training in the Twin Cities
Over a decade ago, PRM obtained documents related to the training of active duty Special Forces troops in the Twin Cities in 2012 and 2014. PRM submitted open records requests to the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, as well as to the Special Operations Command in Florida, which serves as the base for the military units involved.
The two military training operations were conducted without widespread notice, leading to public outcry as military helicopters descended on downtown skyscrapers and buzzed residential neighborhoods at night.
Documents obtained from the Saint Paul Police Department (SPPD) revealed that the training operations were conducted under the auspices of “Department of Defense [DOD] Instruction 1322.28” — a Pentagon document dating from March of 2013. The document provides operational guidance for “realistic military training (RMT) off federal real property.”
The document outlined the policy rationale for using “real-world” locations for urban warfare training by noting that “urban environments are the most complex and difficult to emulate on federal property,” and are also the most desirable for training opportunities.
The 1322.28 document also explicitly sought to further expand “civil support” opportunities for law enforcement by making them part of the training of active duty military forces. The documents stated that “DOD will deepen collaboration with civilian law enforcement agencies” in order “to maximize military training opportunities that concurrently and legally support law enforcement and homeland security requirements.” The document further noted that “where possible, DOD will strongly consider law enforcement needs in the planning and execution of military training.”
At the same time, other documents related to the training operations indicated that the military was being careful not to skirt the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act and veer into domestic law enforcement operations. For instance, language in a military “location licensing agreement” signed before the 2014 operation noted that overhead imagery that would be collected during the exercises would “not be utilized to support local, state, or federal law enforcement investigations.”
Federal documents obtained from SPPD revealed that the Department of Defense had requested a low profile for the training events. A DOD Power Point presentation on the proposed 2014 operation included several pages devoted to strategies for reducing media exposure and avoiding “adverse public reaction.”
Adverse reaction came nonetheless, as the Saint Paul City Council had not been fully briefed on the operation, and ended up fielding calls from surprised constituents. Council member Dave Thune called the operation a “boneheaded blunder” in an e-mail to city staff, and subsequently went public with his critique.
The matter of “civil support” military training for SPPD personnel was raised in an e-mail exchange between police official Tim Flynn and an unnamed DOD official on August 26, 2014. In the exchange, the DOD official stated that he was “getting inquiries from Minneapolis PD about us training you.” He further noted that, “we are directing all our folks to remain on all your local social media and capture anything that comes out in release. What’s at risk here – our future relationship. Your trip this way next year and our future trips that direction.” The official noted in conclusion that Saint Paul was “already on the ‘cliff’ with their recent town councilman’s actions. It must be controlled.”
Insurrection Act discussed in reference to 2020 Twin Cities riots
Documents relating to the possible deployment of federal troops for law enforcement activities emerged after the 2020 riots in the Twin Cities. The riots followed the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, and occurred in the midst of a statewide “lockdown” stemming from the COVID pandemic.
After Floyd’s death on May 25th, large-scale protests were mounted the next day. By May 27th, protest activity had been eclipsed by widespread looting and arson. Documents obtained by PRM indicate that the City of Minneapolis requested the deployment of the Minnesota National Guard late in the day on the 27th, although state military forces did not arrive in Minneapolis until the next evening.
Unlike federal troops, state-level National Guard troops operating in a state capacity are not bound by the Posse Comitatus Act, and can be utilized in law enforcement operations, although most troops generally do not participate in making arrests.
As arson and looting escalated during the Minneapolis riots, state public safety officials participated in a May 29 conference call with top Pentagon officials, including Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who was serving as part of the first Trump administration. A timeline of riot events prepared by the Minnesota Department of Public Safety noted that Pentagon officials “asked a series of detailed questions” to Minnesota officials and “were satisfied” with the state’s proposed plan.
That same day, Trump posted the following to X (then Twitter): “These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz [of Minnesota] and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!” Trump added.
Documents obtained by PRM from the Minnesota Governor’s Office show that during this same time frame, President Trump had considered invoking the Insurrection Act to respond to protests and riots that had spread to other U.S. cities. A June 1, 2020 memo from the National Governor’s Association quoted White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany as saying that “The Insurrection Act, it’s one of the tools available, whether the President decides to pursue that, that’s his prerogative.”
Contemporaneous press accounts note that Defense Secretary Esper had cautioned Trump against using the Insurrection Act to deploy federal forces for riot control. “The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. We are not in one of those situations now," Esper was quoted as saying.
Trump ultimately did not invoke the Insurrection Act, and state-level forces solely dealt with the response to the 2020 riots.
PRM FOIA request to DOD
Given the Trump administration’s consideration of using the Insurrection Act, PRM has sought out other federal documents to shed light on the administration’s deliberations about such actions.
In the immediate aftermath of the January 6, 2021 riot at the United States Capitol, PRM submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Defense seeking correspondence related to “to the activation of military forces and/or military assets pursuant to the Insurrection Act.”
The department has not responded to PRM’s FOIA request. PRM has filed an administrative appeal.
(Supporting documents for this article can be accessed by contacting Public Record Media at admin@publicrecordmedia.org , or at 651-556-1381)